Iowa Workers' Compensation

  Towns v. Silver Oaks Nursing and Rehabilitation Center , No. 25-0310 (Iowa App. Dec. 17, 2025) In this somewhat complicated jurisdictional dispute, claimant initially filed an application for alternate medical care, which was denied.  A petition for judicial review resulted in the district court remanding the issue to the agency to redetermine the alternate medical care dispute based on more specific evidentiary findings.  The agency, through a deputy, issued a decision again denying alternate medical care.  Rather than filing an application for judicial review, claimant filed a document captioned "presentment of agency response to remand order for additional factual finding and request for order for hearing transcript and scheduling orders" with the district court. At hearing, defendants challenged jurisdiction, as claimant had not filed a petition for judicial review. Claimant argued the court had retained jurisdiction under its earlier remand order. The court ag...

  US Nursing Corp. v. Decormier , No. 25-0407 (Iowa App. Dec. 3, 2025) Claimant suffered an injury at work.  Under her contract at work, she was initially guaranteed 48 hours of work per week at $65 per hour, with $97.50 overtime.  She received a $10 per hour raise the week before she was injured. The deputy concluded her weekly rate was $1562.50 and denied penalty benefits.  On appeal, the commissioner agreed with the weekly rate but awarded a $5500 penalty.  Defendants filed a judicial review, which affirmed the decision of the commissioner The fighting issue with respect to the rate was whether section 85.36(6) or 85.36(9) was to be applied. The commissioner found that 85.36(6) appied, as claimant had worked at US Nursing for not only ten weeks in Sioux City but on an earlier assignment.  Defendants' argument that 85.36(9) applied because claimant had earned no wages or less than the usual wages customary in the industry was denied, as defendants' own wi...

  Koeller v. Cardinal Logistics Management Corp. , No. 25-0172 (Iowa App. Dec. 3, 2025) Claimant suffered an injury to his shoulder and was found to need a shoulder surgery , which included a distal clavicle excision .  Dr. Bollier , the physician who performed the surgery, provided a 6% permanent impairment rating based on loss of range of motion . No rating was provided for the distal clavicle excision, as Dr. Bollier did not believe this was related to the work injury. Dr. Taylor , claimant's IME physician , provided a 19% upper extremity impairment rating, which included a 10% rating for the distal clavicle excision.  In making this rating, Dr. Taylor indicated he did not use the 10% modifier from Table 16-18 of the AMA Guides because he believed that Table 16-27 was inadvertently listed as one of the tables to which the modifier should be applied.  Dr. Crites performed a record review and also found that the modifier did not apply and gave the full 10% impair...